The Insider

Numbers
By Thomas Duffy
December 8, 2009 at 5:00 AM

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of all U.S. forces in Afghanistan, told the House Armed Services Committee this morning he does not anticipate having to ask for more forces beyond the 30,000 additional troops President Obama recently committed to the war.

“I do not anticipate the requirement for additional forces, but I will have the responsibility to give my best military advice,” McChrystal said in response to a question from committee Ranking Member Rep. Howard McKeon (R-CA).

McKeon also tried to get McChrystal to state how many extra troops he asked Obama to approve; the general would not bite. McChrystal did say he asked for forces to be deployed as quickly as possible and that 30,000 was the amount that fit.

McChrystal said he would provide the committee the exact number he asked for in a classified session. He added that he made no recommendation on a withdrawal date either. In his speech at West Point last week, Obama said the U.S. military would begin to withdraw forces starting in July 2011. In congressional testimony last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said any decision to remove troops will be contingent on how the war is going at the time.

Dueling Forecasts
By John Liang
December 8, 2009 at 5:00 AM

The past year hasn't been so bad for the aerospace and defense industry, according to Aerospace Industries Association CEO Marion Blakey.

"As with most sectors of our economy, the aerospace and defense industry has found the business climate in 2009 very challenging," Blakey writes in today's AIA "Daily Lead" newswire service. "But it is fair to say that A&D has proved its mettle by delivering generally positive results each quarter, with a year-end sales increase still projected. Industry leaders can take credit for applying hard-learned lessons of the past to build a solid foundation that is helping us weather a difficult period."

Blakey continues:

Many analysts believe we will be faced by flat or declining defense aerospace R&D and procurement funding in the coming year, despite the new Defense Department team's recognition of industry's increasing concerns about the defense industrial base. Obtaining adequate funding for the Next Generation Air Transportation System and our manned space program are important, yet uncompleted, priorities.

However, long overdue initiatives to modernize the export control system will enhance interoperability with our allies and make us more competitive. And the first-ever National Aerospace Day Sept. 16 successfully highlighted the contributions of our industry to our economy and national security and put a face on the 844,000 workers who contribute day-in and day-out to make us strong. The tagline of our advocacy outreach says it all simply, but eloquently: Aerospace and Defense – the Strength to Lift America.

Shaun McDougall, international military markets analyst for Forecast International, isn't as optimistic, however.

In a press release today, FI announces:

After years of unprecedented growth, the pace of overall U.S. defense spending appears to have reached a plateau, and will likely commence a steady decline in the coming years. That is not to say that the Pentagon's base budget is due for major cuts in the near term, however. Rather, the basis for this anticipated downturn is a shifting security environment overseas, particularly in Iraq.

Indeed, of the total funding obligated for military operations overseas since 2001, over 76 percent was spent in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). The U.S. now has an exit strategy in place, and plans to remove its combat forces from Iraq by August 2010, and all remaining personnel by 2011.

According to Forecast International's latest analysis of the U.S. defense market, "Redeploying U.S. assets in Iraq will be a complex and costly process, and the need to repair or replace equipment damaged or lost in theater will only add to the near-term investment. Nevertheless, the report adds that as combat operations wind down and troops leave Iraq by the thousands, the overall financial burden on the U.S. will slowly begin to ease.

China Connection
By Sebastian Sprenger
December 8, 2009 at 5:00 AM

The Defense Department is still eying a supply route to Afghanistan through China in addition to the existing northern and southern supply networks. Officials are timid when it comes to describing where negotiations with the Chinese stand. It appears, though, that the matter is progressing rather slowly.

In interview over the summer, U.S. Central Command logistics chief Army Maj. Gen. Kenneth Down told Military Logistics Forum a China route would come in handy to transport "gear and vehicles" from the Pacific, and talks to that end involving the State Department and U.S. Pacific Command were under way.

A DOD spokeswoman would only say the situation hasn't changed since the summer, without elaborating.

One source with knowledge of the matter said Chinese economic interests could factor into how this plays out. China operates a copper mine in Logar province, south of Kabul. And Beijing was expected to build a rail connection into Badakshan province, whose thin northeastern arm provides the only border with Western China. Such a connection, the source said, is a prerequisite to making a trans-China route possible.

Open Sesame
By John Liang
December 8, 2009 at 5:00 AM

The White House today issued a directive to all federal agencies to "take specific actions to open their operations to the public," according to a statement on the Office of Management and Budget Web site:

The three principles of transparency, participation, and collaboration are at the heart of this directive. Transparency promotes accountability. Participation allows members of the public to contribute ideas and expertise to government initiatives. Collaboration improves the effectiveness of government by encouraging partnerships and cooperation within the federal government, across levels of government, and between the government and private institutions.

According to the directive itself:

This Open Government Directive establishes deadlines for action. But because of the presumption of openness that the President has endorsed, agencies are encouraged to advance their open government initiatives well ahead of those deadlines. In addition to the steps delineated in this memorandum, Attorney General Eric Holder earlier this year issued new guidelines for agencies with regard to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). With those guidelines, the Attorney General reinforced the principle that openness is the Federal Government’s default position for FOIA issues.

The directive "promises further steps to come," Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists writes on his Secrecy News blog:

So, for example, within 45 days each agency is obliged to publish online "at least three high-value data sets" that have not been previously available online. Within 60 days, each agency must establish a portal for public access to its open government activities, including provision for public feedback and input. Within 90 days, OMB will issue guidance on the use of new incentives to promote further openness.

The new directive does not extend to classified national security information or controlled unclassified information, both of which are to be addressed in other pending executive orders. But it does direct agencies to reduce any backlogs in Freedom of Information Act requests "by ten percent each year."

Significantly, the new open government policy directive did not emerge from the exercise of "checks and balances" by the other branches of government. Congress did not urge the Administration to promote a culture of openness, much less compel its adoption. Instead, it is a unilateral executive branch effort, akin in its conception to Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary's landmark Openness Initiative of the 1990s, but now extended for the first time to the entire executive branch.

Success is not guaranteed.

The previous Administration used to invoke the theory of "the unitary executive," which generally holds that all executive branch power and authority is vested in the President. But the opposite may be closer to the real state of affairs, in the sense that the exercise of presidential authority is dependent on innumerable acts of compliance by scattered officials any of whom can, whether through disobedience or incompetence, frustrate the implementation of policy. And the more ambitious the proposed change, the more likely it is to encounter resistance.

So It Begins
By Sebastian Sprenger
December 7, 2009 at 5:00 AM

Defense Department officials this morning released deployment details for the first batch of forces, numbering 16,000, supporting the Afghanistan surge.

An infantry battalion task force, with approximately 1,500 Marines, from Camp Lejeune, N.C., will deploy later this month. Regimental Combat Team-2, headquartered at Camp Lejuene, N.C., will deploy approximately 6,200 Marines in early spring 2010. A Marine Expeditionary Force (Forward) headquarters from I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif., will deploy approximately 800 Marines in spring 2010.

A Brigade Combat Team (BCT), with approximately 3,400 soldiers from the 1st Brigade, 10th Mountain Division, Fort Drum, N.Y. will deploy in early spring 2010 to conduct a training mission.

Secretary Gates also approved the deployment of approximately 4,100 support forces, which will deploy at various times into spring 2010.

For the record, the announcement also notes that President Obama authorized the troop increase of 30,000 on Nov. 30 -- one day before his public announcement of the plan at West Point.

To Arms
By Kate Brannen
December 7, 2009 at 5:00 AM

Army Maj. Gen. Robert Caslen has been nominated for a third star and a new assignment as commanding general of the Army's Combined Arms Center at Ft. Leavenworth, KS, a place often referred to as the "intellectual center of the Army."

He'll be replacing Lt. Gen. William Caldwell, now the commander of the NATO Training Mission in Afghanistan as well as the commanding general of the Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan. Before Caldwell, Gen. David Petraeus, now commander of U.S. Central Command, held the position. He used his time at CAC to revamp the service's counterinsurgency doctrine, introducing field manual 3-24. Under Caldwell, the center unveiled another influential field manual, FM 3-07, on stability operations.

Caslen is serving as commanding general of the 25th Infantry Division, Schofield Barracks, HI. This time last year, he took charge of Multi-National Division-North in Iraq.

A graduate of the United States Military Academy, Caslen previously served within the Joint Staff Strategic Plans and Policy Directorate (J-5) as the deputy director for the war on terrorism, according to an on-line bio.

The Senate is required to approve his promotion and third star.

YouTube Battles
By John Liang
December 4, 2009 at 5:00 AM

While terrorist attacks have often been carried out with an eye toward media attention, the age of cell-phone cameras and YouTube has made that angle much more prevalent and worthy of note in today's world, according to a new report sponsored by the Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute:

Terrorist attacks ought to be understood as consciously crafted media events, and while that has always been the case, today it is more true than ever before in two ways. First, the terrorist attack is itself often designed and intended for the cameras. Terrorist attacks are designed for an audience. Their true target is not that which is blown up -- that item, or those people -- for that is merely a stage prop. What is really being targeted are those watching at home. The goal, after all, is to have a psychological effect (to terrorize), and it isn’t possible to have such an effect on the dead.

This means that the terrorist attack is a media event in the sense that it is designed to attract the attention of the media, the same way that a political campaign event is a media event designed to attract the media's attention and thus garner coverage. When we discuss media attention, we are really first and foremost talking about television, and we are really then talking about gaining the attention of the cameras—and the way to do that is to provide good visuals, however those are defined in a particular context.

Understanding the interaction between media needs and the way terrorist attacks satisfy those needs is essential. This is the case because developing strategies to fight an insurgent enemy has become more challenging as today’s wars are taking place in a radically new information and media environment, and today’s terrorists and insurgents have been brilliant at capitalizing on this environment in their operational art.

For today, terrorism is a media event in a second sense. Terrorists and insurgents are now no longer dependent upon the professional media to communicate. In fact, to an unprecedented degree, the professional media have become dependent upon them. This is due to technological developments which permit any terrorist to film, edit, and upload their actions virtually in real time whether Western media are there to serve witness or not.

Several new technologies, all of which have become relatively mature at relatively the same time, together have made this new information environment, and it is this environment on which terrorists and insurgents are capitalizing. An information or communication technology becomes mature when it meets several criteria. First, it must be available off-the-shelf. Second, it must be affordable, something within financial reach of a decent percentage of the population. Third, critically, it must be small enough to be easily portable. Fourth, it must be available in most of the world, and not just in the developed countries.

Not only do those videos help decrease a nation's desire to continue the counterinsurgency fight, they are also valuable recruiting tools for insurgents, according to the report written by University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Associate Professor Cori Dauber:

Between June and roughly November 2007 (roughly the period corresponding to the "surge"), American forces captured eight media labs belonging to AQI ((al Qaeda in Iraq)). In these labs they found a total of 23 terabytes of material that had not yet been uploaded to the web. Coalition forces made the labs a priority target under General David Petraeus because of their importance to AQI operations, recruitment, and funding. The loss of those labs, according to the Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I), resulted in more than an 80 percent degradation of AQI's capacity to get new material on the web as of September 2007, critical because it was the videos that played a large role in bringing in recruits from the larger Arab world.

Science Talk
By Sebastian Sprenger
December 4, 2009 at 5:00 AM

Scientists at the Los Alamos National Laboratory have successfully employed a new diagnostic tool to gauge the effect of nuclear weapons in a lab environment: the Dual-Axis Hydrodynamic Test.

According to an NNSA statement issued today, here is how it works:

Conducted inside a specially designed double-walled containment vessel, the test used high explosives to drive an implosion of a W78 duplicate made from non-nuclear surrogate materials. As the mockup is imploding, the DARHT facility fires two electron accelerators positioned at a 90-degree angle from one another to generate high-power X-rays that are used to create multiple images of the imploding device’s inner workings, which are then compared with computer predictions.

“Initial indications show excellent data return,” David Funk, LANL's hydrodynamic experiments division leader, is quoted as saying in the statement. “The baseline experiment captured five time-dependent X-ray images and a variety of data from other diagnostics of pressure, temperature, and timing."

Any questions?

Export Controls Redux
By John Liang
December 3, 2009 at 5:00 AM

The Aerospace Industries Association is lending its member CEOs' clout to the White House's ongoing review of the export control process.

As Inside the Pentagon reported in October:

The U.S. government is beginning a complicated review of export controls guided by three principles, Anthony Aldwell, deputy director of the Defense Technology Security Administration, said last week, adding it will be “a very complex and contentious process.”

“It is not going to be easy,” Aldwell told an audience of several industry executives during an Oct. 3 conference on defense cooperation held in Arlington, VA. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met recently with Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, he said, noting consultations must also occur with lawmakers or the effort will “go nowhere.” Consultations with the defense industry are also key, he noted.

To that end AIA, in a letter sent this week to President Obama, "strongly endorses the view that the current system must be updated to address both the national security challenges we face today, as well as the evolving technology and competitive landscape. We have long advocated for a more predictable, efficient and transparent technology control regime that advances our national security interests. An effective export control system must safeguard critical technologies, as well as facilitate collaboration with our closest allies and international partners. The review you have called for holds the potential to generate significant progress toward that end."

According to AIA, the White House could take "early action" on several potential reform initiatives that would not need new laws, including:

1. Establishment of transparent and specific criteria to identify those militarily critical and sensitive defense and space technologies that must be subject to the most rigorous controls
2. Facilitation of timely technology flows between the U.S. and our closest allies and partners, particularly in support of defense and national security programs important to the U.S. government
3. Adoption of procedures to ensure any required Defense Department reviews associated with a proposed release of U.S. technology properly balance both policy and technical considerations, and are completed in a timely and consistent manner
4. Update of the treatment of the next-generation of aerospace and defense technologies, such as Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS), under U.S. and multilateral export control regimes
5. Review of export control compliance requirements to improve comprehension and implementation, particularly among small and medium-sized firms, as well as a review of resource requirements to raise confidence in the effectiveness of U.S. enforcement efforts.

Cost Isn't Everything
By Zachary M. Peterson
December 3, 2009 at 5:00 AM

Alabama's two senators and Rep. Jo Bonner (R ) sent a letter today to Navy Secretary Ray Mabus urging the service to consider more than cost as the determining factor in its decision to select between the two competing Littoral Combat Ship designs this fiscal year.

“The draft request for proposals emphasizes cost as the decisive factor in the design decision, placing technological advancements as secondary criteria,” Sens. Jeff Sessions (R) and Richard Shelby (R) and Bonner write in the Dec. 3 letter. “This means that price is more important than quality and that performance is not a critical factor.”

The design competition pits Lockheed Martin, which is building its monohull LCS in Wisconsin, against General Dynamics, which builds its trimaran LCS in Alabama. The sea service plans to chose one of the two designs before the end of fiscal year 2010. The Navy ultimately desires a 55-ship LCS fleet.

In the letter, the Alabama lawmakers argue Lockheed had a head start on the first LCS, the Freedom (LCS-1), which gives the company “significantly more information about the performance of its ship and recurring costs of correcting its deficiencies.” The Navy has hence created “an uneven playing field,” the lawmakers write.

Earlier today, the Navy revealed cost data for the third and fourth LCS vessels. The Lockheed-built LCS-3 is priced at $470.9 million, while LCS-4, under construction by GD, is valued at $433.7 million. The costs include “ship construction, non-recurring construction and additional engineering effort, configuration management services, additional crew and shore support, special studies and post-delivery support,” according to the Naval Sea Systems Command statement.

See our story on it here.

The costs do not include 2007 termination of the original contracts, government-furnished equipment or contract support expenses, the statement notes.

“The contract values do not include the cost of continuation work and material used from the terminated original contract options for LCS-3 and -4,” the statement explains. “The value of the continuation work and material from the terminated LCS-3 was $78 million for Lockheed Martin and $114 million from the terminated LCS-4 for General Dynamics.”

Model Guard
By Marjorie Censer
December 3, 2009 at 5:00 AM

Senator Kit Bond (R-MO), in a letter sent today, is calling on the Obama administration to adopt the Missouri National Guard's model to stabilize Afghanistan.

According to the missive, sent to Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the National Guard Agriculture Development Teams have been extremely successful in Afghanistan. Though the Missouri Guard sent the first ADT team to Afghanistan in February 2008, there are now 10 other states with teams of their own, Bond writes.

"It makes sense to utilize further this already successful National Guard model to serve as a vital bridge between the military capabilities of the Department of Defense and the civil capabilities of the State Department," he adds.

Furthermore, Bond attaches a proposal from the Missouri National Guard's adjutant general that backs establishing a "civil branch" of the National Guard as a pilot program and supports establishing the Missouri Regional Training Institute at Ft. Leonard Wood to serve as a "center of excellence" to train civilians, among other recommendations.

The proposal "uses existing, proven, and cost-effective National Guard assets to achieve stability in troubled areas based on the successful State Partnership Program and the Agriculture Development Team concept," Bond concludes, urging Gates and Clinton to review the proposal.

Talking Trucks
By Marjorie Censer
December 3, 2009 at 5:00 AM

Texas lawmakers sat down with the Army today to discuss the award of the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles "rebuy" contract, which was granted to Oshkosh earlier this year.

According to a press release, a bipartisan delegation of lawmakers -- including Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) and Rep. Michael McCaul (R) -- was scheduled to sit down with service officials to ask them "to reconsider the flawed bidding process that has mistakenly awarded the FMTV contract to a bidder with zero experience building these armored trucks and is requesting millions of dollars in government aide to create a facility where they can be built."

Houston Mayor Bill White (D) was also set to attend.

Incumbent BAE Systems has its FMTV production facility in Sealy, TX. BAE, as well as losing bidder Navistar, has protested the decision to the Government Accountability Office. GAO is set to rule by Dec. 14.

Brussels Calling
By Sebastian Sprenger
December 2, 2009 at 5:00 AM

After President Obama's speech on the way ahead in Afghanistan last night, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen today threw his support behind the U.S. strategy. According to a statement on the Alliance Web site, Rasmussen "confirmed" plans to send "at least 5 000 more soldiers and probably more" from NATO members and partners to Afghanistan during 2010. (The statement makes no mention from where these troops would come.)

Speaking before the Senate Armed Services Committee this morning, Defense Secretary Gates said Washington is seeking 5,000-7,000 additional forces from NATO.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who also testified today, said she will speak with Alliance foreign ministers in Brussels tomorrow to discuss details.

Stryker Zone
By Marjorie Censer
December 2, 2009 at 5:00 AM

Strykers work very well in Iraq but are not as effective in Afghanistan, House Appropriations defense subcommittee chairman John Murtha (D-PA) told reporters during a briefing today on Capitol Hill.

He said he has spoken with a British general who said he plans to change the way Strykers operate in the country, but Murtha did not provide further details.

Strykers have been criticized as ineffective and unsafe in Afghanistan, most notably in a Washington Times article published last month. That piece quoted one soldier who called the Stryker "the most dangerous ride of my life."

"Equipment is a big worry," Murtha said today.

Tanker Talk
By John Liang
December 2, 2009 at 5:00 AM

Northrop Grumman's threat yesterday to abandon its bid for the KC-X airborne tanker competition "is merely a posturing move," according to a research note issued this week by Credit Suisse analysts Robert Spingarn and Julie Yates.

Northrop wants to opt out of the competition unless the Pentagon makes significant changes to the draft request for proposals, which, Spingarn and Yates write: "((A))ppears to favor the smaller tanker likely to be offered by BA ((Boeing)). We suspect partner EADS endorsed NOC’s ((Northrop's)) strategy. Frankly, we agree, as our recent visit to the annual USAF Airlift/Tanker Convention suggests that the recently adopted pass/fail nature of the evaluation process favors a smaller aircraft that meets minimum hurdles."

The Credit Suisse analysts further write:

Simply a Ploy: We see NOC’s letter as part of a negotiation process because NOC has concluded it would have to bid the current RFP at a massive loss in order to win, as the extra capabilities offered by its Airbus 330-based tanker will not receive credit unless bid prices are within 1 percent of one another. This “negotiation” needs to be wrapped up soon because the Secretary of Defense may see this as an issue that impacts his legacy.

NOC’s Objectives: (1) To alter the new pass/fail evaluation method in order to favor a premium technical solution/capability at a justifiable price premium (2) To re-introduce proposal risk to differentiate maturity of the two candidate aircraft, where BA’s “frankentanker” suffered last time (3) To re-introduce past performance which penalized BA in the prior contest.

Path Forward: (1) We think the final solution must allow Sec. Gates to deliver a new tanker at savings of at least several hundred million dollars to the taxpayer vs. the ‘08 contract (2) Given that USAF Air Mobility Command & OSD are now refusing to pay a premium price for additional technical capability (beyond KC-135 performance), NOC must explain why it’s a/c is a better solution (3) To achieve a more balanced RFP, we think NOC must be prepared to make concessions that have an equally favorable benefit for BA.

If NOC refuses to accept concessions, Secretary ((Robert)) Gates might go ahead with an uncontested award, but Congress remains an unpredictable factor.